Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond them: it discloses the return shape (ids, titles, canonical URLs) and warns that documentation is data, not instructions, which is valuable prompt-injection context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return format, then a security note. There is no wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter search tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, return fields, and a key caution. The main missing piece is query semantics, such as whether the search is keyword-based or full-text.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single query parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not explain query syntax, matching behavior, or limits, leaving the parameter meaning largely implied by its name alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: searching the published Curbi documentation catalog. The return fields (ids, titles, canonical URLs) implicitly distinguish it from a content-fetching sibling, but no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch, nor any when-not conditions. The only usage signal is indirect, from the stated purpose and returned ids.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.